Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
be termed - an answer. I am reminded of kōans - questions to which there are endless answers. (To me,) The question Why? implies wonderment. Some final fragmented and fractious thoughts that I want to express because I read them, disagreed and feel the need to replace them with alternatives. (1) I don't think efficiency is the end-all be-all goal of evolution/selection and I take issue with conflation of efficiency and fitness, at least without specifically qualifying a circumstance. What of enjoyment? If efficiency, in what terms? For whom? Why do we defecate then? (another 1) I don't think people alive today have any better/deeper understanding of the world than any of our ancestors of contemporary detrivores do, just different. It's always been an information age, just less electronic maybe. It's a nice ego boost to think of one's self as evolutional acme, but there are plenty examples of unintended consequences of Slothrop's Progress (as such) that I'd wager many people would put on, or toward, the uh-oh edge of things: increased cancer rates; oil spills; explosions of asthma and autisms... which d! irection are such steps? And who's the accountant? I think Paula Abdul had a song about this, riffed from V. Lenin maybe? Are more humans better? In some ways, we may need to unknow existing orders? Long-windedly, Brian Challfant -ologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:46 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic is a trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through insight - and that insight normally comes about because the highly trained individual was thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out at them until left to digest. Additional ways of knowing all will have to be tested logically. It is easy to make up questions for which there are no answers. That does not make the question interesting. Moral questions are about how we get along, and they can indeed be informed by logic as well as emotion. Finally, asking a why question implies that the question is sensible and an answer exists. I would propose that we may have no reason to think either. Cheers, Jim On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:33, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is some of this something aware of itself? And why is this self aware of the something? And why does it ask these questions? Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and interconnect? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the naturalist's trance is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ah-HA! I think she's
[ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic Conflict Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Respecting the Differences Between Religion and Science
Honorable Forum, Michael Zimmerman, and beyond . . . The Ecolog thread, Science and Religion Dogmatic Conflict actually began in response to a post in which a professor [of biology/evolution] lamented the fact that he had lost a grad student because the student couldn't reconcile his religion with science (evolution). Here is the key paragraph (the discussion was about which textbook[s] to use in a non-major course in evolution--the subject of the thread was evolution for non-scientists textbook): I like some of the other suggestions in this thread as well, especially Sean Carroll's book. Coyne is very good too, and Dawkins new book is probably dependable in getting the students' attention (I haven't read it). The Selfish Gene is too old to be used as a general text for a course on evolution. Moreover, with Coyne and Dawkins, I'd worry about alienating some of the religious-minded students. I would hesitate to use those in a non-majors class here in the central valley of California, for example. In fact, I suspect that Coyne's book may have played a role in pushing one of my own students (a grad student no less!) away from Biology because the evidence/arguments in that book were too strong for this religious student to handle. Of course that end result was good in some ways, but it depends on what your goals are with the class. Besides, your audience in Princeton (presuming it hasn't changed in the decade since I was there) will be rather different from what I face here in Fresno - so your mileage may vary! That professor (Madhusudan Katti), was concerned that the Coyne and Dawkins books might alienate some of the religious-minded students. Apparently it was the Coyne book which caused the student to stray from the biology flock, as it were, but Katti was not overly concerned about (while still regretting) the loss. But one wonders just what it was about the Coyne book (presumably Why Evolution is True?) that pushed the grad student away. There must have been some kind of long struggle going on in the student's mind, some pivotal event, or some strong contrary evidence to have accomplished such a feat. Zimmerman cites the fact that many religious organizations see no conflict between their expression of religion and science, so what does this actually mean? Does it mean that some religions are in transition toward a more science-based way of thinking? Does it mean that there has been a core of reason in those religions all along? Is this subject within the realm of comparative analysis? For starters, is there any utility in recognizing (if it is, in fact, the case) that dogmatic religious practice is or is not synonymous with the phenomenon of religion (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not dogma rears its head in scientific practice)? WT - Original Message - From: David Inouye ino...@umd.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 6:39 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Respecting the Differences Between Religion and Science My latest piece in The Huffington Post calls for greater understanding of and respect for the differences inherent in religion and science. You can read it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/religion-and-science-resp_b_583460.htmlhere (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/religion-and-science-resp_b_583460.html). If you're so inclined, please post a comment and share the article with friends who might also be interested. I'm tickled to say that two of my pieces have been listed as being among the top 10 essays of all time on The Huffington Post in terms of the number of comments they've received. Thanks for your help in making this happen Michael p.s. As always, if you want to stop receiving notes about my essays, just let me know and I'll remove you from the list. Michael Zimmerman m...@butler.edu No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2885 - Release Date: 05/20/10 06:26:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Martin, Larger brains in earlier modern humans may not indicate that they were logical, sceptical empiricists. Even if a larger brain necessarily meant greater mental capabilities, the larger brains of Cro Magnons (for example) could just as easily have been better at religious thinking, as at logical thinking. But a large brain doesn't necessarily mean greater mental capabilities. If it did, men would be, on average, about 10% more mentally capable than women, and I don't know of any evidence for that. While it's possible that our mental capabilities are inferior to those Cro Magnons had, it's also possible that our brains now have greater spatial efficiency, with no big change in mental ability relative to earlier modern humans. That said, I don't really take issue with anything else you said. I would only like to add that I think religion is a manifestation of some very useful human mental characteristics. I think its origin must be in our attempts to use verbally-based abstract and symbolic thinking to explain those periods when our focus is so absorbed by an object, an activity, or our general environment, that our internal monolog shuts down and our verbal record of events goes spotty or totally blank. Such an experience can make one feel like one has left one's body, or has been taken over by another being. If some insight comes from the experience, it may seem to have come from an outside source. Only recently, with our modern philosophy of science, has it come to seem so improbable that trance-like states and the insights that come from them could have non-natural origins. Finally, I'll just say that you could be right about modern humans being less rational, more religious, and generally not as smart as our paleolithic ancestors. One big evolutionary advantage of organized religion is that it gives great power to the group. The people in tribe A might be smarter, but the people in tribe B are more unified in their purpose, so they are more likely to win if war breaks out, allowing them to displace tribe A. Meanwhile, within tribe B, individuals who don't subscribe to the dominant religious viewpoint (including those who do not feel spiritual and those who see through the priesthood's manipulations) are much more likely than average to be killed or cast out from the group. Thus, highly rational, skeptical individuals would have low relative fitness within a tribe with many religious types, and tribes dominated by free-thinkers would be displaced by tribes with a strong priesthood. Just throwing another just-so story on the fire. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
. For example, I've read and discussed a lot of religions and I think the principle of reciprocal interpersonal ethics (some would gild this and use words like unto and do - note that it can be rendered very scientific-sounding by throwing in a few quadra-/penta-syll! abic adjectives with balanced consonant-to-vowel ratios preceded by the principle of) stands as an example of an idea that has been broadly vetted across time and cultures and accepted in a variety of religious ellipses/circles. (Ahh, but what of child sacrifice? you say?! Nay? Or Yea? Maybe a fuzzy-setted, conditional kind of Maybe-Nay?) And I think much of this discussion has too conveniently divorced the spread of Science (as such) from colonialism and religious proselytizing... there's suspicious spatiotemporal correlation there too, methinks. Empires of empiricism? B./W. Silvert touched on the idea of power structure. (I think) When anyone presents and idea that threatens current power structures, opposition will arise - the rationality of which depends on perspective. One example cited by J. Crants: when astrophysicists suggest (based on years of meticulous research which maybe helped those astrophysicists to feed themselves and their families) the universe is much older than some religious leader purports, and said religious leader's reputation, position and ability to feed herhimself (nod to W. Tyson) and/or family is put in jeopardy by having herhis authority and thus position of influence questioned... resistance seems a natural response, but this resistance may eventually give way to acceptanc! e and paradigm change over time and with sufficient multiple-party debate/discussion and/or self-reflection... blah blah blah. I have seen similar scenarios arise within academic scientific circles when a new theory/study calls into question a previous theory or entire body of work that may jeopardize some untenured professorship. Extend this to corporate interests disputing climate science. Extend this to disputing the disputed science... Selfishly folded proteins aside; selfish selves create much rub. I'd also argue with the idea that religion(s) - monotheistic or not - and science(s) strive purely to provide certainty, comfort and enlightenment. I think aspects of human nature do yearn for certainty and explanation, which - in part - lead to development of myth, religion and science - but I think equal aspects of human nature yearn for disorder, improvisation and the sheer excitement of unpredictability... I think our religio-mythic empirical toolbox provides us with means to express all parts of our desirous spectra. I find as much satisfaction in coming to new questions that arise while attempting to answer previous ones and in find that there are things I still don't understand (or overstand?), mysteries to be explored (oh no! that colonial impulse!), as in arriving at - what could be termed - an answer. I am reminded of kōans - questions to which there are endless answers. (To me,) The question Why? implies wonderment. Some final fragmented and fractious thoughts that I want to express because I read them, disagreed and feel the need to replace them with alternatives. (1) I don't think efficiency is the end-all be-all goal of evolution/selection and I take issue with conflation of efficiency and fitness, at least without specifically qualifying a circumstance. What of enjoyment? If efficiency, in what terms? For whom? Why do we defecate then? (another 1) I don't think people alive today have any better/deeper understanding of the world than any of our ancestors of contemporary detrivores do, just different. It's always been an information age, just less electronic maybe. It's a nice ego boost to think of one's self as evolutional acme, but there are plenty examples of unintended consequences of Slothrop's Progress (as such) that I'd wager many people would put on, or toward, the uh-oh edge of things: increased cancer rates; oil spills; explosions of asthma and autisms... which d! irection are such steps? And who's the accountant? I think Paula Abdul had a song about this, riffed from V. Lenin maybe? Are more humans better? In some ways, we may need to unknow existing orders? Long-windedly, Brian Challfant -ologist -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:46 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic is a trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through insight - and that insight normally comes about because the highly trained individual was thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
This posting has been nagging at me for a couple of days, since it could be rephrased as Experimental science is about answering the questions of what, where, when and how. Theoretical science tries to address the question of why. Of course theorists seek mechanisms rather than Deus ex Machina, but still theory, like religion, seeks to understand why nature is the way it is. Of course this runs the risk of assuming supernatural knowledge, which is presumably why Newton said Hypotheses non fingo, but humans seem to have a need to understand the WHY and are not satisfied with simply a detailed description. So both theoretical science and religion try to address the question of why, but in different ways. Which gets us back to the original question of compatibility between science and religion! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 21 de Maio de 2010 5:08 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? There's an old saying, and it's probably already been brought up, that science is about answering the questions of what, where, when and how. Religion tries to address the question of why. Warren W. Aney
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Hello all, Unfortunately, I'm on the fence, perhaps weak agnostic is the proper term. I believe the question that's being discussed is a personal one for all of us. There is no side or stance or belief that should hold sway. Darwin spent a very long time trying to figure out if religion and science could coexist. For John Muir religion, science, and nature were intertwined, part of the same fabric. Many of our best scientists view the exquisite complexity their work has uncovered as evidence of God, others have reached exactly the opposite conclusion. We scientists understand that the term science is a rather large umbrella, and we need to come to an understanding that the same is true for religion. In parting, whether ye be scientist or clergyman, a closed mind is not a scientific mind. In my experience the former are often more dogmatic than the latter. Kevin On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 5:00 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.orgwrote: This posting has been nagging at me for a couple of days, since it could be rephrased as Experimental science is about answering the questions of what, where, when and how. Theoretical science tries to address the question of why. Of course theorists seek mechanisms rather than Deus ex Machina, but still theory, like religion, seeks to understand why nature is the way it is. Of course this runs the risk of assuming supernatural knowledge, which is presumably why Newton said Hypotheses non fingo, but humans seem to have a need to understand the WHY and are not satisfied with simply a detailed description. So both theoretical science and religion try to address the question of why, but in different ways. Which gets us back to the original question of compatibility between science and religion! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 21 de Maio de 2010 5:08 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? There's an old saying, and it's probably already been brought up, that science is about answering the questions of what, where, when and how. Religion tries to address the question of why. Warren W. Aney
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
As Andrew Yost said: Why does energy and matter organize itself through time to ask questions like why does energy and matter organize itself to ask? Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon _ From: Micah Moore [mailto:mmoore1...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, 20 May, 2010 12:30 To: Warren W. Aney; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I agree, well said Mr. Warren. I will restate your words to see if I am on the same wavelength. How could all energy arise from the Big Bang without everything being energy in some form? How is the human collection of energy able to study energy itself? How are hydrogen bonds, water or iron able to discuss themselves? How did the force of natural selection produce energy forms that talk about natural selection? Because the words, science and religion exist, energy produced both of them, and it must have been present with all other energy released from the Big Bang. As systems change (evolve), will there be intermediates(missing links) for majority of the energetic/genetic/behavioral recombinations(adaptations)? Respectfully, Micah J. Moore _ From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thu, May 20, 2010 1:33:02 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is some of this something aware of itself? And why is this self aware of the something? And why does it ask these questions? Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and interconnect? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the naturalist's trance is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ah-HA! I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . . Eureka! Peak experiences! As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets processed by our inner resources, and breaks through back into the conscious after a period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus produced. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up neurotheology) and are often connected to experiences in nature. My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
There's an old saying, and it's probably already been brought up, that science is about answering the questions of what, where, when and how. Religion tries to address the question of why. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Thursday, 20 May, 2010 13:46 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic is a trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through insight - and that insight normally comes about because the highly trained individual was thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out at them until left to digest. Additional ways of knowing all will have to be tested logically. It is easy to make up questions for which there are no answers. That does not make the question interesting. Moral questions are about how we get along, and they can indeed be informed by logic as well as emotion. Finally, asking a why question implies that the question is sensible and an answer exists. I would propose that we may have no reason to think either. Cheers, Jim On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:33, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is some of this something aware of itself? And why is this self aware of the something? And why does it ask these questions? Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and interconnect? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the naturalist's trance is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ah-HA! I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . . Eureka! Peak experiences! As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets processed by our inner resources, and breaks through back into the conscious after a period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus produced. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up neurotheology) and are often connected to experiences in nature. My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I have waited to say anything to this, because it was too interesting to see where the conversation went, but now the below has struck me. He said, religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors. I suppose that depends on how you define gods, and whether you are speaking objectively or subjectively. We need only look around us to see that the majority of human beings percieve the world subjectively. How often has a harmless encounter with some wild animal been transformed in the retelling into a close call? The victim was afraid for hisher life; therefore the animal must have been trying to kill himher. How many wars have been fought because each side sees the other as invading lands which are rightfully theirs? (The Mexican-American war comes to mind) So if a human being experiences something like the naturalist's trance, or some similar type of eureka experience, then, subjectively speaking, it is an epiphany, i.e., a revelation of a god. The question then becomes, how likely are other human beings to experience the same? If the members of an isolated culture, in a prticular environment, all have a similar collection of experiences, it sees likely to me that their eureka moments will have much in common. At least enough to form a fairly coherent vision of what god is. At this point is when the issue becomes one of how we define a god. If we go with the modern, sophisticated theologians' view, of God as some personal Being, then none of the above necessarily has anything to do with God. But most people through human history have not been sophisticated theologians. But if I may be so bold as to suggest that god may be thought of scientifically as the underlying order in the universe -- the order which we glimpse piecemeal in scientific laws -- then to the extent that subjective experiences or epiphanies awaken the human awareness to the laws of the universe, religion may to that extent be considred to originate with gods revealing themselves to our ancestors. None of this requires that we see such gods as personal beings; but of course, subjectively, non-scientific humans have tended to do so. Jason Hernandez M.S., East Carolina University --- On Thu, 5/20/10, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system lists...@listserv.umd.edu wrote: I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors).
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is some of this something aware of itself? And why is this self aware of the something? And why does it ask these questions? Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and interconnect? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the naturalist's trance is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ah-HA! I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . . Eureka! Peak experiences! As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets processed by our inner resources, and breaks through back into the conscious after a period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus produced. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up neurotheology) and are often connected to experiences in nature. My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came erratically into view. What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience. But what is this naturalist's trance good for, other than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our minds changed. This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think? Jane Shevtsov
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Jason, If you've been following this conversation to this point, you should know that, when I said religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors, I was responding to a previous post by William Silvert, who has been consistent about equating god with a personal being and religion with worshipping such a god and following the commandments attributed to that god. Religion did not arise because a supernatural person jumped down from heaven, shooting thunderbolts and handing out mandates. I don't think it's accurate to say that every eureka moment or naturalist's trance is, subjectively, a revelation of a god. I've had many such experiences, and I rarely even imagine that any god is behind them. Doesn't that meant that, subjectively, the experience is not a revelation of a god? That said, if I understand the point you're really making here, I agree with you halfway. Are you saying that religion probably originates from these trance-like or epiphany-like experiences, and from people trying to make sense of such experiences? I think that's likely to be the case. Are you also saying that such experiences typically reveal some objectively real order to the universe that we did not previously perceive? I doubt that. They can, but they can also reveal patterns that aren't objectively real, which would suggest that god is the order we perceive in the universe, not the order that's actually there. Your post also raises the possiblity (to me) that science can be seen as a religious or spiritual pursuit, and not just for those who see it as revealing the order of God's work. Most significantly, it provides a sense of purpose, and like a religious quest, it is a search for truth. An atheistic scientist just sees no need to pursue (or invent) truths beyond the natural world, which is quite wonderful enough as it is. Science does have its necessary commandments, too. Thou shalt not cherrypick thy data. Thou shalt not fudge thy results. Thou shalt not anthropomorphize. That sort of thing. We know why we have these rules, but we also mostly follow them without question. Jim On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Jason Hernandez jason.hernande...@yahoo.com wrote: I have waited to say anything to this, because it was too interesting to see where the conversation went, but now the below has struck me. He said, religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors. I suppose that depends on how you define gods, and whether you are speaking objectively or subjectively. We need only look around us to see that the majority of human beings percieve the world subjectively. How often has a harmless encounter with some wild animal been transformed in the retelling into a close call? The victim was afraid for hisher life; therefore the animal must have been trying to kill himher. How many wars have been fought because each side sees the other as invading lands which are rightfully theirs? (The Mexican-American war comes to mind) So if a human being experiences something like the naturalist's trance, or some similar type of eureka experience, then, subjectively speaking, it is an epiphany, i.e., a revelation of a god. The question then becomes, how likely are other human beings to experience the same? If the members of an isolated culture, in a prticular environment, all have a similar collection of experiences, it sees likely to me that their eureka moments will have much in common. At least enough to form a fairly coherent vision of what god is. At this point is when the issue becomes one of how we define a god. If we go with the modern, sophisticated theologians' view, of God as some personal Being, then none of the above necessarily has anything to do with God. But most people through human history have not been sophisticated theologians. But if I may be so bold as to suggest that god may be thought of scientifically as the underlying order in the universe -- the order which we glimpse piecemeal in scientific laws -- then to the extent that subjective experiences or epiphanies awaken the human awareness to the laws of the universe, religion may to that extent be considred to originate with gods revealing themselves to our ancestors. None of this requires that we see such gods as personal beings; but of course, subjectively, non-scientific humans have tended to do so. Jason Hernandez M.S., East Carolina University --- On Thu, 5/20/10, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system lists...@listserv.umd.edu wrote: I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
To reify the idea of a god and call it nature offers no explanation of anything. To say that there are other ways of knowing, rather than logic is a trivial observation that things are sometimes discovered through insight - and that insight normally comes about because the highly trained individual was thinking a lot about it, but the answer didn't really pop out at them until left to digest. Additional ways of knowing all will have to be tested logically. It is easy to make up questions for which there are no answers. That does not make the question interesting. Moral questions are about how we get along, and they can indeed be informed by logic as well as emotion. Finally, asking a why question implies that the question is sensible and an answer exists. I would propose that we may have no reason to think either. Cheers, Jim On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:33, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is some of this something aware of itself? And why is this self aware of the something? And why does it ask these questions? Are these questions best addressed by science or by religion? Or do they represent some of the areas where science and religion interface and interconnect? Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of James Crants Sent: Wednesday, 19 May, 2010 07:37 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the naturalist's trance is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ah-HA! I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . . Eureka! Peak experiences! As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets processed by our inner resources, and breaks through back into the conscious after a period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus produced. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up neurotheology) and are often connected to experiences in nature. My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human religion have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors). However, science can say something about what goes on in the brain when people have religious experiences, and perhaps it can say something about why some people seem to need religion while others couldn't be religious if they wanted to. It can tell us how similar the experience of meditation is to the experience of prayer, or getting mentally absorbed in an anthill, or drawing, or playing an instrument, or driving a car, and so on. Based on a biological understanding of religious experience, plus the archeological evidence, we can form models of how religion originated and evolved in modern humans, and how it is relevant to modern life. I do think the naturalist's trance is basically the same as a religious experience. I don't know of any hard evidence bearing on that, but the experience is similar to those I've had from meditation, intense prayer, playing music, painting pictures, and running much further than a mile or so. Such experiences say nothing at all about whether there is such a thing as divinity, but I think they have a lot to do with the origins of humanity's belief in divinity. Jim Crants On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ah-HA! I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . . Eureka! Peak experiences! As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets processed by our inner resources, and breaks through back into the conscious after a period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus produced. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up neurotheology) and are often connected to experiences in nature. My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came erratically into view. What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience. But what is this naturalist's trance good for, other than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our minds changed. This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think? Jane Shevtsov
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Honorable Forum: It is interesting that such a seemingly simple beginning of a professor's dilemma--a student who abandoned biology because heshe could not square evolution with hisher religion--would lead down so many diverse pathways. But then, I suppose one should not be surprised that such a fundamental and widespread phenomenon and issue would be so wide and so deep. The subject and its examination does not defy logic, but the imposition of formal logic might complicate the process of gaining ground on understanding and clarity simply because so few people actually care to become entwined in its abstract riddles, and so few have actually taken courses in it. Other routes to truth may be more circuitous, but may be necessary to actually reach a point of clarity and reconciliation, perhaps for the very reasons Moore points out. Crossing the bridges that language, semantics, and custom, not to mention the convolutions of both specialties and generalizations, may require more patience and less pedantry. But that does not mean that intellectual discipline need be abandoned altogether. The initial sorting out process might be begun by stating a premise, then moving consistently through a process in which the premise and its supporting statements are first subjected to initial judgments as to whether or not they are more likely to be true or untrue, reserving final judgment for further cycles of such winnowing. Any statement will do as a point of beginning, as did the professor's dilemma, and the journey may well stumble upon other issues on the route to its solution. I, for one, am not at all concerned that the original question has not yet been answered. If the professor has followed this discussion and has done hisher own winnowing, heshe may have found another way to engage students on the issue. In the meantime, the discussion has, with notable vigor and maturity, explored many roads less traveled by and maybe even set in motion many adventures that will feed back and nourish the study of ecology in ways that challenge other assumptions and move minds in wondrous ways. WT - Original Message - From: Micah Moore mmoore1...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Thank you for making that point. I agree that logic is not the only suitable tool for discovering the truth. I should have been clear about the target audience for the terminology used in that post. Also, I agree that the language I used, currently, would not be efficient when communicating with the majority of human beings. With that in mind, I agree that communication/discussion/explanation/persuasion/information should incorporate morality, emotion, logic etc... in the order and proportions that make the energy expense receivable/usable for the majority of the audience. Maybe the order is emotion, morality then logic. When I examine myself I see that hearing some sort of news elicits emotion first for varying duration based on many variables. That usually leads to my thinking that's not right or what a horrible thing to do. The morality then leads to why does this anger or excite me and why is that right or wrong. I think people who have had the privilege of continuing education(more stimuli) will be more likely to perform introspection, but I believe that you are right in saying that humans encounter many different combinations of emotion, morality and logic. Globally, there is a great diversity of human beings who are unique, and each has encountered unique sets of stimuli across their life(time) that compounds their uniqueness. Because the audience is diverse those, who possess and utilize a diversity of communication skills, will be more capable when attempting to relate with a majority of that diverse audience. When people live in a country where a diversity of languages are spoken, those who are bi, tri or multilingual will likely benefit accordingly. If the majority of a given persons' interactions are with a single language, he or she can afford to invest more in what is needed for primary interactions. This trade-off will be relative to the extent that resources are acquired through social interactions. A person living in the country side that interacts/acquires through a small, less diverse group that speaks one language(including with an accent), can afford not to invest as much energy in learning the languages that are more necessary for the high diversity scenario. The diversity(and complexity) of interactions in our solar system, in turn, favors that diversity of genetics. If energy is to stay in the system termed genes, genes will benefit from genetic diversity to ensure its relative stability(survival). A environment with a diversity of pathogens/diseases etc..., will favor a diversity of genetic code for the immune system. A diversity of soil
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
system did not change but where it existed. So increasing population, along with all changes in climate etc..., favored the evolution of human the human brain and the concepts it used. Hunter gatherers could not have this discussion. The first agrarian societies could not have this discussion. From the Mesopotamian to Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, British, American and others not mentioned, concepts have transformed and transferred. At one time there was no concept, primates were not capable. As primates evolved, electrical activity in their brains(concepts) that made them more efficient in the environment evolved as well. It is not coincidence that if we go around the world in 60 seconds, we see the why there is such great variety in beliefs, non-belief, values, culture, religion and Societies. As the number of people have increased, so has the variability of our interactions and the need to understand it. Science could only progress slowly, as the number of brains increased. As time progressed the best mind strategies hashed themselves out, while more brains allowed for brain division of labor and specialization. All the way through the Dark Ages to the Enlightenment. Gradually, Science(concept/mind strategy) is replacing what use to work for the given conditions that the human brain encountered. We know that Religions were in place in their respective regions because populations were relatively isolated. If those Religions had been inefficient brain wave processes, they would not have resulted in higher numbers of human energy systems(population) in those areas. Science, overall, has made us more efficient in our environment, as changes in environment occur. Knowledge is Power literally, in kilojoules. Through time, environment will filter knowledge that is beneficial. We only need to look at the fossil record to realize that the filtering process is never a smooth process. In our species, there will be turmoil in the evolution of mind strategies, and reaching a consensus between two or seven billion people is quite the process, due to the limits of communication(pathways). Different pathways offer differing amounts of resistance(ohms), which is why things become lost in translation. From the first who were self aware to the polytheists, monotheists, the Enlightenment and beyond, efficiency(fitness) will emerge in any form or process of energy behavior(expression). This energetic process that we call existence(the universe/energy) will transform and transfer(evolve) just as it has always done. We must remember the vastness/dynamics/sheer complexity of what we call life(i.e.have open minds), and remember that every thing, process, behavior, thought, Concept and discussion are a part of that beautiful system. Whether a vocalization(energy transfer) calls it God, Mother Earth, Creation or the Big Bang, they were produced by the same complex interactions of energy, and through time, environment will select what works best(fitness). Remember, language(words) are limited when they themselves do not contain an equal amount of energy, as the energy systems they attempt to describe. Respectfully, Micah J. Moore From: Adam Sibley s1b...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 1:42:56 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer review on their work are able to catch every error. A few more examples: - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the reviewer who allowed it into the literature thought about it. As I'll be using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review process has produced a quality product. - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not being able to produce the original data by which their global
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
was an excellent example of this: A predominantly moral, emotional argument supported by logic. Granted, when all three methods of debate are used together in harmony, the most effective arguments are made, in my opinion. That said, the ideas you present in your post are interesting and thought-provoking about how everything, from human thoughts to living and non-living systems, can be measured in terms of energy, and are constantly and consistently dynamic in their change and evolution. While I personally found this perspective intriguing, I'd argue a layman would read your post and have their eyes glaze over in short order. That isn't to say a layman should not seek education and understanding, no, but what I'm trying to say is that this isn't a convincing argument for the average modern human. If we wish to seek (and indeed, spread) truth and understanding of the truth, I think it behooves us to be as clear and simple in our communication as possible while avoiding the dangers of over simplification. In summary, truth is hard. - Derek E. Pursell --- On Mon, 5/17/10, Micah Moore mmoore1...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Micah Moore mmoore1...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Monday, May 17, 2010, 8:29 PM This is a wonderful discussion, and it is one well worth having. The nature of this topic will elicit almost as many individual responses, as there are people. One must approach the discussion delicately for the sake of discussion; if the purpose is to discover truth. We all know from our courses in logic and critical thinking that, truth needs no defense. Truth exists independent of what anyone thinks, wishes or claims it to be. Thought and discussion, that attempt to exclude emotion(bias) will make the human species more fit, and it will be necessary minimize bias if we are to overcome the challenges that confront us. Science would not emphasize the need to minimize bias if it were not so. Any language has inefficiencies which hinder its users from precisely describing observations, repeated results or truth, and people often argue over terminology when the terms are, indeed, expressing the same concept. The following will attempt to express the relatedness of Science and Religion by starting with Energy and concluding with the collections of energy termed humans. I hope that all who read it will consider it knowing that I realize it limitations as I write, but that I am joining the discussion for the very same fundamental reason that it is taking place. We must ask ourselves; Do we really want to know? It is very easy to take sides and blindly accept a claim. It requires energetic work in the form of kilojoules to put various amounts of thought and energy into examining different claims, but one can still arrive at a conclusion that is not the truth. No matter the belief system, we must ask ourselves if we really want to know the truth, no matter where the chips fall. Religion and Science are thought to be mutually exclusive by most discussing the issue, and both concepts claim to be a more a accurate representation of truth. They are different expressions of the same root cause. Most people will agree that different professions, disciplines, beliefs and life forms are related: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, sociology, economics, marketing, accounting, art etc... The general consensus is that they are related, but must do not or cannot consider the depths of the universal relationship of all energy forms. The concepts or mind strategies of Religion and Science are more related than most think. Conflict arises due to many variables or barriers that exist between systems and limit energy flow or idea exchange. Language is a large barrier, and discussions of any topic are attempts to open energetic pathways, break down barriers, ultimately to arrive at a consensus(equilibrium). The purpose of this very discussion is so that the participants arrive at a more efficient mind strategy for viewing Science and Religion, whether or not they are aware of the energetic purpose. There are other variables are besides language; differential genetics, different informational stimuli, environmental stimuli, resource availability etc..., and these variables make conflict inevitable. A deeper understanding this topic is possible today because knowledge evolves, just like we evolve. It is almost certain that a deeper understanding will be possible for future generations. Any topic of discussion can integrate information from every subject that is known because energy is the base that gives rise to all expressions that exist or could exist. A deeper understanding of the Ecology of Energy(human behavior) will not be reached if the discussion does not incorporate all fields of knowledge. Keep in mind a word, sentence
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Ah-HA! I think she's GOT IT! By Jove, I think she's got it! The rain in Spain . . . Eureka! Peak experiences! As in all art, the concentration of the intellect somehow gets processed by our inner resources, and breaks through back into the conscious after a period of gestation and there is a birth of insight. Burning bushes and other hallucinations aside, just about all scientific discovery is thus produced. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up neurotheology) and are often connected to experiences in nature. My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came erratically into view. What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience. But what is this naturalist's trance good for, other than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our minds changed. This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think? Jane Shevtsov On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:14 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Another consideration, given that James has brought William of Occam into this, is that a comprehensive scientific overview of the issue would involve paying some attention to the question of where religion comes from. If there were no reasonable alternative explanation, then the idea of gods making themselves known to people might be the only option. There are however plausible explanations for the development of religion that make sense to an atheist. Since we tend to see the world in anthropomorphic terms (even contemporary scientists speak of furious storms and treacherous riptides), no doubt early man associated natural phenomena with human-like gods or spirits. There were no doubt individuals who claimed that they understood these spirits and became shamans and priests. Eventually the priesthood hooked up with the politicians in the powerful symbiosis that has existed throughout recorded history - priests maintain the state religion and kings rule by divine right. Priests and ministers accompanied colonialists to ensure that the minds of those conquered were enslaved as well as their bodies. So there is an alternative explanation that covers most religions, and I think that should be an important part of scientific thinking about the relation between science and religion. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2879 - Release Date: 05/17/10 06:26:00
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com wrote: His central point I find striking, in that the modern interpretations of some evolutionary biologists that propagate Dawkins' selfish gene idea are assigning traits we'd typically assign to specimens of a species (sexual selection, the general struggle for continued existence), to genes, the mechanics of organisms and species. I'm very curious as to what people think about the selfish gene idea here, considering the pool of intellectual heft here to weigh upon it. - Derek E. Pursell Derek, though a good many individuals fail to see it, and continue to interpret Dawkins as if it were't so, so far as I know, the selfish gene was and is a metaphor. It provided a way of looking at selection to focus on the idea that through selection, genes are promoted to greater frequency in populations. Granted, much writing since the metaphor was first applied has treated it as more than that, it seems to me that that's what it is. Sincerely, David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
that non-scientists can understand it). His central point I find striking, in that the modern interpretations of some evolutionary biologists that propagate Dawkins' selfish gene idea are assigning traits we'd typically assign to specimens of a species (sexual selection, the general struggle for continued existence), to genes, the mechanics of organisms and species. I'm very curious as to what people think about the selfish gene idea here, considering the pool of intellectual heft here to weigh upon it. - Derek E. Pursell --- On Sun, 5/16/10, James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com wrote: From: James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 1:45 PM Sorry Derek, I realized I called you Dave just AFTER I clicked the send button. I indeed did mean you, and not Dave, whoever he may be. Cheers, Jim On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 18:55, Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com wrote: Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what would we like to define as sufficient knowledge in order to justify having an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils are obvious. Granted, the definition of sufficient knowledge is broadly interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the same word to mean many different things. The problems surrounding definition and how words are understood and used is something that is best solved by the evolving pursuit of greater education, for all people. Not to send the topic too far askew, but if we'd like to make the normative suggestion that people -should- learn more about a topic before forming an opinion on it, how do we go about creating that education and awareness, especially considering that the traditional academic structure of learning is not something that all people have access to? The internet has done wonders to help people to this effect, but the pursuit of knowledge remains implicitly voluntary. Granted, it almost always has, but it seems to suggest that to better educate the public at large with the necessary (Interpretations: knowledge of what, and to what degree?) education that is required, that the traditional K-12 + College/University structure needs to evolve to suit the needs of the people. How to go about doing that, oy, that is a topic in and of itself. -Derek E. Pursell --- On Sat, 5/15/10, James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com wrote: From: James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:38 PM I think that some of us may forget about the possibility of NOT forming opinions. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:50, Frank Marenghi frank_maren...@hotmail.com wrote: I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational conclusions On those things we know little or nothing, we do NOT really have to have an opinion. I am reminded of a lay friend who told me outright that global warming was not happening (I think she thinks it is a communist plot). I asked her, why do you even HAVE an opinion on this matter, when you know nothing of the subject? After all, if it is, or is not, occurring, it is not a matter of opinion. Just like evolution - not a matter of opinion. So, if the situation is such that I cannot weigh ENOUGH evidence, I don't come to conclusions either. So, if someone asks me what I think of the grand unified theory of physics, I will say, I don't know enough to form a good viewpoint. That is a much freer position, and more logical for a scientist. Read Futuyma's review of the book What Darwing got wrong (the review is titled Two Critics Without a Clue) and you will see what happens when ill-informed people try to make an argument based on insufficient knowledge of a subject. So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, we should definitely NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one knows little or nothing. Cheers, JIm James J. Roper
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Another consideration, given that James has brought William of Occam into this, is that a comprehensive scientific overview of the issue would involve paying some attention to the question of where religion comes from. If there were no reasonable alternative explanation, then the idea of gods making themselves known to people might be the only option. There are however plausible explanations for the development of religion that make sense to an atheist. Since we tend to see the world in anthropomorphic terms (even contemporary scientists speak of furious storms and treacherous riptides), no doubt early man associated natural phenomena with human-like gods or spirits. There were no doubt individuals who claimed that they understood these spirits and became shamans and priests. Eventually the priesthood hooked up with the politicians in the powerful symbiosis that has existed throughout recorded history - priests maintain the state religion and kings rule by divine right. Priests and ministers accompanied colonialists to ensure that the minds of those conquered were enslaved as well as their bodies. So there is an alternative explanation that covers most religions, and I think that should be an important part of scientific thinking about the relation between science and religion. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: segunda-feira, 17 de Maio de 2010 16:36 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? If you try to apply the scientific approach to such topics, you are stuck with either agnosticism (because questions about the supernatural are scientifically untestable, so we should no pretend we have scientific answers to such questions) or atheism (because assuming the presence of supernatural things on top of all we can demonstrate to be true is less parsimonious than assuming their absence).
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
The history of humanity is a history of error. Early humans--VERY early humans, might have seen themselves as part of the ecosystem far more clearly than modern humans. I remember the story out of Africa shortly after the Polaroid(R) camera came onto the market; a westerner took a photo of an African (Masai, I believe) man, and when shown his picture, the man could not associate the image with himself. The earliest known examples of imagery are believed to be at least 50,000 years old, (rock art from Australia). The earliest images most likely were abstract, but images of things we recognize is probably in the realm of at least 30,000 years old (e.g. cave art in Southern Europe). The older realistic images do not depict human forms (except perhaps those of hands), but are restricted to those of other animals. Even after human figures appear, they are not rendered with the care that other animals are. This invites speculation that anthropocentrism, hubris, and egocentrism probably were later developments, possibly following domestication of plants and animals probably sometime around 10,000 BCE, possibly accompanied by increased emphasis upon the depiction of human forms with greater and greater levels of skill. This requires a much, much better art historian than I, and I would welcome a more specific and accurate examination of these general conclusions, especially if I have made any grievous errors in my general claims. But the point I wish to make is that, while early humans might have interpreted things like lightning and thunder as acts of some god or another, it is equally possible that they simply accepted Nature as a continuum that included themselves, with gods coming into their mythology later, perhaps first expressed in animism, (early art depicts human-animal combinations (shamans?) which can still be seen in a few cultures or societies (closer to Nature?) today, later taking human form (super-chiefs and father-figures, though some of the earliest appearances of human forms in art depicted female figures and genitalia), as civilization began to appear with the advent of agriculture, urbanization, and the development of monotheistic religion that tended to equate God with a father-figure, a protector and defender from the slings and arrows of Nature and human nature. Narcissism arose concurrently, and persists to this very day. As one explores backwards in time, one is forced into more and more speculation and less and less into certainty. It is the quest for certainty that gave rise to monotheistic religions centered upon saviors and saints and priestly hierarchies-and, dare I say, to science itself? Does it not at least equally follow that the myths of pre-civilization were more, not less accepting of Nature's grace than those which developed later, in the last five or ten thousand years to the present? I beg your forgiveness for this extended comment, well beyond 140 characters. WT - Original Message - From: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Another consideration, given that James has brought William of Occam into this, is that a comprehensive scientific overview of the issue would involve paying some attention to the question of where religion comes from. If there were no reasonable alternative explanation, then the idea of gods making themselves known to people might be the only option. There are however plausible explanations for the development of religion that make sense to an atheist. Since we tend to see the world in anthropomorphic terms (even contemporary scientists speak of furious storms and treacherous riptides), no doubt early man associated natural phenomena with human-like gods or spirits. There were no doubt individuals who claimed that they understood these spirits and became shamans and priests. Eventually the priesthood hooked up with the politicians in the powerful symbiosis that has existed throughout recorded history - priests maintain the state religion and kings rule by divine right. Priests and ministers accompanied colonialists to ensure that the minds of those conquered were enslaved as well as their bodies. So there is an alternative explanation that covers most religions, and I think that should be an important part of scientific thinking about the relation between science and religion. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: segunda-feira, 17 de Maio de 2010 16:36 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? If you try to apply the scientific approach to such topics, you are stuck with either agnosticism (because questions about the supernatural are scientifically untestable, so we should no pretend we have scientific answers to such questions
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or volcanism. The presence of more people dictates that the total energy of the solar system did not change but where it existed. So increasing population, along with all changes in climate etc..., favored the evolution of human the human brain and the concepts it used. Hunter gatherers could not have this discussion. The first agrarian societies could not have this discussion. From the Mesopotamian to Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, British, American and others not mentioned, concepts have transformed and transferred. At one time there was no concept, primates were not capable. As primates evolved, electrical activity in their brains(concepts) that made them more efficient in the environment evolved as well. It is not coincidence that if we go around the world in 60 seconds, we see the why there is such great variety in beliefs, non-belief, values, culture, religion and Societies. As the number of people have increased, so has the variability of our interactions and the need to understand it. Science could only progress slowly, as the number of brains increased. As time progressed the best mind strategies hashed themselves out, while more brains allowed for brain division of labor and specialization. All the way through the Dark Ages to the Enlightenment. Gradually, Science(concept/mind strategy) is replacing what use to work for the given conditions that the human brain encountered. We know that Religions were in place in their respective regions because populations were relatively isolated. If those Religions had been inefficient brain wave processes, they would not have resulted in higher numbers of human energy systems(population) in those areas. Science, overall, has made us more efficient in our environment, as changes in environment occur. Knowledge is Power literally, in kilojoules. Through time, environment will filter knowledge that is beneficial. We only need to look at the fossil record to realize that the filtering process is never a smooth process. In our species, there will be turmoil in the evolution of mind strategies, and reaching a consensus between two or seven billion people is quite the process, due to the limits of communication(pathways). Different pathways offer differing amounts of resistance(ohms), which is why things become lost in translation. From the first who were self aware to the polytheists, monotheists, the Enlightenment and beyond, efficiency(fitness) will emerge in any form or process of energy behavior(expression). This energetic process that we call existence(the universe/energy) will transform and transfer(evolve) just as it has always done. We must remember the vastness/dynamics/sheer complexity of what we call life(i.e.have open minds), and remember that every thing, process, behavior, thought, Concept and discussion are a part of that beautiful system. Whether a vocalization(energy transfer) calls it God, Mother Earth, Creation or the Big Bang, they were produced by the same complex interactions of energy, and through time, environment will select what works best(fitness). Remember, language(words) are limited when they themselves do not contain an equal amount of energy, as the energy systems which they attempt to describe. Respectfully, Micah J. Moore From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 10:36:40 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Derek, I think you're right that scientists are apprehensive about religion and spirituality because they deal with concepts that are outside the bounds of science. Any idea about anything supernatural is completely untestable. If you try to apply the scientific approach to such topics, you are stuck with either agnosticism (because questions about the supernatural are scientifically untestable, so we should no pretend we have scientific answers to such questions) or atheism (because assuming the presence of supernatural things on top of all we can demonstrate to be true is less parsimonious than assuming their absence). On the flip side, though, I think the attempts by many religious people to apply religious belief to things that are well within the bounds of science cause even more apprehension for scientists. I think we see that in some of the characterizations of religion we've seen on this forum (ie, religion is about blindly believing things taught to you by religious authorities, regardless of or even in spite of concrete, compelling evidence to the contrary). Believing things about the natural world without or in spite of evidence and logic isn't compatible with the philosophy of science, so if one equates all religion with that kind of belief, science and religion must be considered mutually exclusive, and religious people must avoid topics where
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Dave had a question that at first glance seems tough to answer, but it reminds me of what I teach my biostatistics students. Rule number one, never do anything unless you can explain exactly why you did that thing (as opposed to any other option), and you have to explain that to your mother so that she understands your choice. So, sufficient knowledge is enough that you could explain the topic to someone else to their satisfaction. Therefore, if you feel that if you were called on in a crowd to explain string theory and you would decline thinking that you didn't know enough, well then, you don't know enough. Thus, we are each our own judge on this matter. If I can't explain something so that you can understand it, then I don't know it well enough to have an opinion on it. Cheers, Jim On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 18:55, Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com wrote: Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what would we like to define as sufficient knowledge in order to justify having an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils are obvious. Granted, the definition of sufficient knowledge is broadly interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the same word to mean many different things.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
On another list I recently posted the following, which is relevant to Derek's comment: Should Galileo have been prosecuted?. The philosopher Paul Feyerabend said The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sábado, 15 de Maio de 2010 1:40 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other...
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I think that some of us may forget about the possibility of NOT forming opinions. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:50, Frank Marenghi frank_maren...@hotmail.comwrote: I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational conclusions On those things we know little or nothing, we do NOT really have to have an opinion. I am reminded of a lay friend who told me outright that global warming was not happening (I think she thinks it is a communist plot). I asked her, why do you even HAVE an opinion on this matter, when you know nothing of the subject? After all, if it is, or is not, occurring, it is not a matter of opinion. Just like evolution - not a matter of opinion. So, if the situation is such that I cannot weigh ENOUGH evidence, I don't come to conclusions either. So, if someone asks me what I think of the grand unified theory of physics, I will say, I don't know enough to form a good viewpoint. That is a much freer position, and more logical for a scientist. Read Futuyma's review of the book What Darwing got wrong (the review is titled Two Critics Without a Clue) and you will see what happens when ill-informed people try to make an argument based on insufficient knowledge of a subject. So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, we should definitely NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one knows little or nothing. Cheers, JIm
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvertcien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crantsjcra...@gmail.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
John Barimo jbar...@gmail.com wrote: stuff deleted I once attended a Catholic secondary school where evolution was taught by a priest who conveyed that a creator (god) was the spark that started life and evolution was the means of adaptation, so no apparent conflict there, Maybe no conflict in the priest's mind. However, he was conveying in a science course a religious belief. Should he have stated it as such, with the caution that though he believes it that does not make it real, and no one else has to believe it, I would be ok with that. Being in a position of authority and looked to as the expert by adolescents places secondary teachers in a particularly shaky (and dangerous) position. Given that the school was a religious, private one, not a public one, he was legal, but maybe questionable in an ethics sense. Just my thoughts, and maybe not yours. I'm ok with that. David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what would we like to define as sufficient knowledge in order to justify having an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils are obvious. Granted, the definition of sufficient knowledge is broadly interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the same word to mean many different things. The problems surrounding definition and how words are understood and used is something that is best solved by the evolving pursuit of greater education, for all people. Not to send the topic too far askew, but if we'd like to make the normative suggestion that people -should- learn more about a topic before forming an opinion on it, how do we go about creating that education and awareness, especially considering that the traditional academic structure of learning is not something that all people have access to? The internet has done wonders to help people to this effect, but the pursuit of knowledge remains implicitly voluntary. Granted, it almost always has, but it seems to suggest that to better educate the public at large with the necessary (Interpretations: knowledge of what, and to what degree?) education that is required, that the traditional K-12 + College/University structure needs to evolve to suit the needs of the people. How to go about doing that, oy, that is a topic in and of itself. -Derek E. Pursell --- On Sat, 5/15/10, James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com wrote: From: James J. Roper jjro...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:38 PM I think that some of us may forget about the possibility of NOT forming opinions. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:50, Frank Marenghi frank_maren...@hotmail.comwrote: I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational conclusions On those things we know little or nothing, we do NOT really have to have an opinion. I am reminded of a lay friend who told me outright that global warming was not happening (I think she thinks it is a communist plot). I asked her, why do you even HAVE an opinion on this matter, when you know nothing of the subject? After all, if it is, or is not, occurring, it is not a matter of opinion. Just like evolution - not a matter of opinion. So, if the situation is such that I cannot weigh ENOUGH evidence, I don't come to conclusions either. So, if someone asks me what I think of the grand unified theory of physics, I will say, I don't know enough to form a good viewpoint. That is a much freer position, and more logical for a scientist. Read Futuyma's review of the book What Darwing got wrong (the review is titled Two Critics Without a Clue) and you will see what happens when ill-informed people try to make an argument based on insufficient knowledge of a subject. So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, we should definitely NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one knows little or nothing. Cheers, JIm
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
But Bill, Feyerabend meant that the verdict was rational and just within the context of church DOCTRINE at that time. And, remember, that was at the time that the Pope Urban VIII. He had a list of his own foibles to worry about, so it isn't clear whether Feyerabend's opinion was actually well-founded. However, I think we could say that science should be evidence-based, while religion is not based on evidence. And, I think all religions (if by religion we mean belief in a god or gods, or a supernatural force running the show) are not evidence-based. Once we recognize that, we will also recognize that there is no way to reconcile the two such that there are common grounds for discussion. After all, one group will always be argue using evidence, while the other group will never argue using evidence. A person who is a scientist and has religion must recognize that when they are being religious, they have just left the realms of science. Almost seems like a split personality to me. Cheers, Jim On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 07:57, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: On another list I recently posted the following, which is relevant to Derek's comment: Should Galileo have been prosecuted?. The philosopher Paul Feyerabend said The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sábado, 15 de Maio de 2010 1:40 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other... -- James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics of Terrestrial Vertebrates -- Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil -- E-mail: jjro...@gmail.com Telefone: 55 41 36730409 Celular: 55 41 98182559 Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064 Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715 -- Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Home Page http://jjroper.googlespages.com Ars Artium Consulting http://arsartium.googlespages.com In Google Earth, copy and paste - 25 31'18.14 S, 49 05'32.98 W --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Perhaps a chemist or hydrodynamicist could believe in creationism, but it would require suspension of reason on their parts. Some people partition their mental constructs so that what would be irrational in one context is allowed in another. A larger fraction of engineers and physicians, and other technologists accept creationism than the fraction of practicing scientists who accept it. I have known a few university level science faculty members who professed a belief in creationism. However, like folks in other endeavors, they always resorted to misapplications of scientific method, such as claims about proof, the false dichotomy between theory and fact, and misinterpretations of particular theories like the principles of thermodynamics to buttress their positions. David McNeely William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I disagree with the statement 'If you've ever said I don't know why this works but I trust it does, that is faith.' In my posting I wrote 'The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation.' Adam confuses matters by using the word trust, but the key point is that scientists rely on the balance of evidence, and if the balance shifts, they may change their opinions. When it comes to faith, that tends not to change on the basis of evidence. Examples of how scientists form and then change their opinions abound, especially in the medical sciences where fraud is most common, although still rare. When a credible paper appears with promising results, other scientists often respond by redirecting their research. If further studies cast doubt on the original paper, scientific attitudes shift. When people ask me questions like Do you believe in evolution? my answer is that I don't believe in anything, but I do think that the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. That is not faith. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Adam Sibley s1b...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 19:42 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer review on their work are able to catch every error. A few more examples: - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the reviewer who allowed it into the literature thought about it. As I'll be using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review process has produced a quality product. - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every step they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point to the data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written? No: nor does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error. The scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for validating scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for errors to slip through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think this, but the scientific method and peer review are not impervious to purposely falsified data, especially in studies that involve direct environmental observation. Sure, experiments are supposed to be reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes years, if ever. The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you are involved in a faith based process of discovery. If you've ever said I don't know why this works but I trust it does, that is faith. Conclusions based on non-laboratory observation of the natural world also require faith in the integrity of the research group conducting the study. Thank you, Adam Sibley From: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 12:24:13 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I am not clear what a literal truth is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution is just a theory -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a proven scientific fact. But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not willing to surrender. But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime. I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.orgwrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Honorable Forum: Especially given the generally taboo nature of the subject, I am greatly impressed with the quality of the discourse. It is nourishing rather than debilitating, refreshing, not intoxicating. I still have a lot more reading and considering to do on the previous posts, but will try to use Sibley's comments as a center about which to further flesh out my own thoughts, though they are also based on reflection of other commenters. I read Annie Dillard's book shortly after it was first published, and am only vaguely aware of her discussion of meshing a creator with modern science, but I do remember her eloquence. Those who want more of this sort of thing mixed with non-teleological thinking should not miss Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues of Edward F. Ricketts by Edward F. Ricketts (Author), Katharine A. Rodger (Editor). It is a mix of science and what might be called philosophy that comes as close to reconciling the two as I have seen. Then, of course, there's literally all of Richard Feynman's writings, recordings, and biographies and other material about Feynman that are always worth the reading. Feynman put it this way: It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from A SATISFACTORY PHILOSOPHY OF IGNORANCE (capitals/italics mine), the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how DOUBT IS NOT TO BE FEARED BUT WELCOMED AND DISCUSSED (capitals/italics mine); and to DEMAND THIS FREEDOM AS OUR DUTY (capitals/italics mine) to all coming generations. This is about as close to proselytizing as Feynman ever got. The quote is from his essay, The Value of Science which can be read in Ralph Leighton's (ed.) 2006 book, Classic Feynman. The Essay that follows, Cargo Cult Science, is an essential companion. Both should be required reading for EVERY scientist of ANY kind. All science is PROVISIONAL; that is, it is considered to be true until it is disproved, such as the laws of physics. Their validity is demonstrated by their predictive value in experiment and application--this (especially) takes precedence over review (peer and otherwise), popularity, and even replication. And the job of the scientist, custom to the contrary, is to work to disprove hisher own theory. Still, the specter of GIGO hangs over all of science, and illusions of validity can be quite convincing. Sciences like ecology and geology, lacking a body of testable laws that continue to persist in spite of persistent questioning and proofs over time, must rely upon the PREPONDERANCE of the evidence, which is similarly tested and retested, refined, as it were, over generations. So, if things like formulae are relied upon in the PRACTICE of, say, methods in science education, and thought of as faith, such faith must be a provisional one, subject to continued testing and application--a continual feedback loop of actual consequences of application. Appeal to a higher authority is not absent from science, e.g., the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment was taken on faith for a considerable time, apparently with scientists being so intimidated that when they came up with numbers inconsistent with Millikan, they apparently presumed that Millikan must be right, so adjusted their data to achieve conformance (I say apparently because I provisionally accept on faith the superiority of authorities that the story and the data are true--how's that for irony?). Continental Drift was denied for about four decades until it became Plate Tectonics under new authors, and Piltdown Man was considered valid for about the same period until it was exposed as outright fraud. Millikan himself was a proponent of reconciliation of science and religion. http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Millikan/Millikan.html So what if Nature and God were one and the same? And which state of mind will bring us closer to Nature or God--an unshakable belief in a human tradition (scientific authority or scripture/self-anointed men of God) or an eternal Quest for, as Feynman once put it (essay and book), for The Pleasure of Finding Things Out? WT - Original Message - From: Adam Sibley s1b...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational conclusions based on that evidence, independent of others. We just don't have that much time. When we learn, we rely on teachers who give us information, which we believe to be true, especially with mathematic and chemical equations, as previously mentioned. In science, however we are allowed to question our teachers and are even encouraged to do, which is not as common in (some) religions. In science we may call these things assumptions instead of beliefs. Besides, who said the universe operates in a rational way? That, in itself, is a belief. At least it is a concept that is untestable. We may able to explain how certain things happen but can we ever know why they happen? Or if there is a reason at all? Most of the things in my life, fortunately or not, are completely irrational. Many scientists choose to see the world in a rational way but the majority of people just do what they feel and it doesn't make any sense (to me anyway). I don't think it is fair to say that most scientists are not religious or spiritual either. Besides, is it really appropriate to generalize religious people any more than it is to generalize by race or ethnicity? I know many biologists and ecologists who are spiritual people and good scientists. They are not hypocrites and the two are not necessarily at odds. It just means they are thinking people. They are considerate in the strictest sense of the word. They don't blindly follow evangelists or adhere to radical ideas without good cause (i.e., evidence). There are many scholars from many different religions that are thinking people like this; not charlatans simply trying to convert as many people as quickly as possible; monks and yogis for example that may very well have understandings of the universe very different but equally as valid as that of scientists. Frank Marenghi Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:42:56 -0700 From: s1b...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer review on their work are able to catch every error. A few more examples: - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the reviewer who allowed it into the literature thought about it. As I'll be using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review process has produced a quality product. - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every step they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point to the data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written? No: nor does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error. The scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for validating scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for errors to slip through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think this, but the scientific method and peer review are not impervious to purposely falsified data, especially in studies that involve direct environmental observation. Sure, experiments are supposed to be reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes years, if ever. The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you are involved in a faith based process of discovery
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
There seems to be some misunderstanding of terminology. The word 'Theory in colloquial usage is akin to an hypothesis. For this reason many people engaged in science education have preferred to use the terminology scientific theory To be more clear it should be understood that scientific theories: 1. Are supported by a large amount of factual information (data). The huge amount of biological data that has been collected over the past 150 years continues to support and strengthen the theory of evolution. For example, when we started genetic sequencing of the multitude of organisms on this planet we could have found a much different story, but for the most part, the DNA data broadly supports the phylogenies that were developed based on morphological data. 2. Represent summaries or models of our understanding of how nature works. In the case of evolution, the theory is summarized and elaborated in a massive mathematical foundation that has developed over the last 100 years. 3. Are subject to refinement as new data are collected, but substantial theories such as the theory of gravity, evolution, or the heliocentric model of our solar system are not going to be refuted (just refined). The theory of evolution was refined once we understood genetic inheritance (the Modern Synthesis) and genomics (by elevating the importance of random drift and fully integrating Kimura's Neutral Theory of Evolution). 4. Provide constructs within which we develop and test hypotheses. Evolution is not tested directly but guides the development of questions and the design of experiments. 5. Have predictive power (e.g., a fossil such as Tiktaalik was predicted to exist long before it was discovered). At present we have a much better understanding of how evolution works than we do of how gravity works, yet nobody questions 'the law of gravity.' Perhaps it would be more clear to people if we referred to the 'law of evolution' rather than using the ambiguous word 'theory.' Mitch William Silvert wrote: I am not clear what a literal truth is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution is just a theory -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a proven scientific fact. But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not willing to surrender. But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime. I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I think any disagreement I have with what you're saying is a matter of splitting semantic hairs. Wayne's original point had to do with the conflict between dogmatic religion and science, and there's definitely a conflict. You're right that religious dogma (and other non-rational beliefs) often trumps science in the minds of individuals, and I'm right that science often trumps dogma in the minds of individuals, even religious individuals. Wayne also says there is much in science that is not inconsistent with true religion. I have some idea what he means by true religion, and I've heard similar statements from many religious people who are frustrated at seeing religion hijacked by dogmatic loudmouths. One problem is that religious discussion has been so thoroughly controlled by dogmatic believers for so long that there are no longer any words to express what non-dogmatic religious people even believe. I guess my only point is that, as much as religion as practiced by most people in the West conflicts with science, there are still plenty of religious people who have no trouble with science whatsoever, and no trouble accepting scientific findings as the best model available for how reality actually works. There is no inherent conflict between science and religion, there is just inherent conflict between science and certain bits of religious dogma (to which not all religious people subscribe). On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.orgwrote: I am not clear what a literal truth is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution is just a theory -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a proven scientific fact. But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not willing to surrender. But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime. I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other. An open mind for a different view goes a long way, and as Aristotle said, It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. I think the biggest boundaries between meaningful, peaceful bonds between the religious and scientific communities are the common assumptions that are made. Many people have these assumptions based upon how people dress, act, or speak, and these assumptions typically lead to false conclusions. To keep this personal anecdotal example short, as a scientist and a Jew who regularly wears his yamaka, I have received many confused looks and curious questions about why I am wearing religious garb while I normally preach (to play with words) rationalism, logic, the virtues of the scientific method and the need for empirical evidence in human endeavor. Not to take the conversation too far into the anthropological realm, as Mr. Silvert said, but the fact remains that mysticism, spirituality, and religion are nearly universal in the human condition, however they are expressed. These belief systems, as long as they do not conflict with the ideals, principles, and functioning of science, rationalism, education, and intellectual discourse, do not present problems for each other. Mutual exclusivity is not something that applies, as long as people keep an open mind and understand that faith and reason, while fundamentally different concepts, are both valid ideas and tools of the human mind. - Derek E. Pursell --- On Fri, 5/14/10, James Crants jcra...@gmail.com wrote: From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:14 AM On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
The world as it should become? Overpopulated because many religions oppose birth control? So many religious ideas are based on assumptions about how the world is now that they oppose any actions that would make the future better. James Watt was Reagan's Secretary of the Interior and expressed the view that it was only necessary to conserve resources until the Lord returned, although he did admit that since he didn't know how soon that would be, perhaps we should conserve enough resources to keep the intermediate generations going. There are certainly some religions based on the idea of continuous improvement in the world, but this is not how I would characterise all of them, or even the majority of them. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: 'William Silvert' cien...@silvert.org; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 13 de Maio de 2010 4:18 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
For those of you who do not think that this debate is divisive, just check out the gubernatorial campaign in Alabama. Both sides are going against evolution to gain supporters! On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 00:18, Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net wrote: How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 [image: S-CanITeachEvolution.gif] S-CanITeachEvolution.gif
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. To illustrate. Let's say you have a deadly bacterial infection. Science, (based on fact) shows that the use of a wide spectrum antibiotic will take care of the infection. Religion (based on faith) tells you to pray to your god. Then, choose which path you take. Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. http://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 20:18:44 -0700 From: a...@coho.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU How about: Science is trying to discover the world as it is, religion is trying to develop a world as it should become. Warren W. Aney (503) 246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 14:50 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong.
[ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Ecolog: What a pity that evolution scares away religious students. With the exception of some professional bible-thumpers and other immoral manipulators, I find most religious people attracted to various dogma because they are fundamentally (npi) good, and are as sick and tired of institutionalized indifference of the domineering quality of civilization as the rest of us. Belief is only easier than thinking because the dominant cultures do not want their victims challenging their authority; thus there is no Thinking 101 taught anywhere that I know of. Princeton? Fifth grade? Thinking is the natural, easy, hard-wired brain function. To overcome this automatic habit, children have to carefully taught. It has to be drummed in[to] their dear little ears to quote the song from South Pacific. Thinking and believing can't be done at the same time, but if the cataracts of dogma can be lifted a bit, with patience rather than mimicking the very kind of fundamentalism that created them in the first place (in scientific clothing), the thought process can begin to soften the sclerotic encasement that confines the mind.* Perhaps one place to start is to stop asking whether or not people believe in evolution. Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong. A real reading of, say, the Vedic scriptures, the Koran, the Bible, and other ancient tracts of uncertain and probably multiple authorship, rather than taking the rantings of some self-righteous demagogue as gospel will reveal that much thinking has gone into those once flexible tracts that have been perverted through mistranslation and modification to suit the expediencies of money-changers in priestly shrouds that have constructed hierarchies that have silenced the custom of consultation that once was an integral part of their development. The Demagogues of Dogma (title of an essay upon which I am still working) find it expedient and effective to demonize unbelievers, and science itself tends to silence heretics, hence it is not immune from some of the same processes that have perverted religions, which once were centers, foci, of honest philosophy as disciplined (not conformist) thought. Why scientists fear religion is no mystery. The fear has an origin common to both what passes for science but is actually restrictive, in much the same way as dogma insists upon conformity to the interpretations of the current crop of authoritarians. There is much in the history of religious thought to interest scientists; there is much in science that is not inconsistent with true religion. They both are signposts in the history of human thought, and both contain elements which, if subject to continuous challenge, might contribute to a transformation from the rigidities of civilization to a reconciled state of being which has been my life-quest since the age of fifteen: To reconcile the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life. WT *I strongly recommend Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues of Edward F. Ricketts By Katherine A. Rodger, with a foreword by Susan F. Beegel. It is not a text, but I am reluctant to term it additional reading. - Original Message - From: Madhusudan Katti mka...@csufresno.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Just following up on my earlier suggestion, there is a positive review of The Tangled Bank in the recent American Biology Teacher: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.13 “For students of evolution or scholars who want to know the specifics about particular evolutionary processes, this is an excellent read. The fact that it is understandable to beginners and fascinating to scientists makes this book truly unique and valuable.” I would also recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent blog The Loom (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom) as a companion to any course on evolution. I like some of the other suggestions in this thread as well, especially Sean Carroll's book. Coyne is very good too, and Dawkins new book is probably dependable in getting the students' attention (I haven't read it). The Selfish Gene is too old to be used as a general text for a course on evolution. Moreover, with Coyne and Dawkins, I'd worry about alienating some of the religious-minded students. I would hesitate to use those in a non-majors class here in the central valley of California, for example. In fact, I suspect that Coyne's book may have played a role in pushing one of my own students (a grad student no less!) away from Biology because the evidence/arguments in that book were too strong for this religious student to handle. Of course that end result was good in some ways, but it depends on what your goals are with the class. Besides, your audience in Princeton (presuming it hasn't changed in the decade since I
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Not on ecology but neatly (albeit a bit old) great book on Eastern religious beliefs were way ahead of nuclear physics is of course Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Physics-Exploration-Parallels-Anniversary/dp/1570625190/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1273701010sr=8-4 He also has other interesting books On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Ecolog: What a pity that evolution scares away religious students. With the exception of some professional bible-thumpers and other immoral manipulators, I find most religious people attracted to various dogma because they are fundamentally (npi) good, and are as sick and tired of institutionalized indifference of the domineering quality of civilization as the rest of us. Belief is only easier than thinking because the dominant cultures do not want their victims challenging their authority; thus there is no Thinking 101 taught anywhere that I know of. Princeton? Fifth grade? Thinking is the natural, easy, hard-wired brain function. To overcome this automatic habit, children have to carefully taught. It has to be drummed in[to] their dear little ears to quote the song from South Pacific. Thinking and believing can't be done at the same time, but if the cataracts of dogma can be lifted a bit, with patience rather than mimicking the very kind of fundamentalism that created them in the first place (in scientific clothing), the thought process can begin to soften the sclerotic encasement that confines the mind.* Perhaps one place to start is to stop asking whether or not people believe in evolution. Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong. A real reading of, say, the Vedic scriptures, the Koran, the Bible, and other ancient tracts of uncertain and probably multiple authorship, rather than taking the rantings of some self-righteous demagogue as gospel will reveal that much thinking has gone into those once flexible tracts that have been perverted through mistranslation and modification to suit the expediencies of money-changers in priestly shrouds that have constructed hierarchies that have silenced the custom of consultation that once was an integral part of their development. The Demagogues of Dogma (title of an essay upon which I am still working) find it expedient and effective to demonize unbelievers, and science itself tends to silence heretics, hence it is not immune from some of the same processes that have perverted religions, which once were centers, foci, of honest philosophy as disciplined (not conformist) thought. Why scientists fear religion is no mystery. The fear has an origin common to both what passes for science but is actually restrictive, in much the same way as dogma insists upon conformity to the interpretations of the current crop of authoritarians. There is much in the history of religious thought to interest scientists; there is much in science that is not inconsistent with true religion. They both are signposts in the history of human thought, and both contain elements which, if subject to continuous challenge, might contribute to a transformation from the rigidities of civilization to a reconciled state of being which has been my life-quest since the age of fifteen: To reconcile the needs and works of humankind with those of the earth and its life. WT *I strongly recommend Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues of Edward F. Ricketts By Katherine A. Rodger, with a foreword by Susan F. Beegel. It is not a text, but I am reluctant to term it additional reading. - Original Message - From: Madhusudan Katti mka...@csufresno.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Just following up on my earlier suggestion, there is a positive review of The Tangled Bank in the recent American Biology Teacher: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1525/abt.2010.72.3.13 “For students of evolution or scholars who want to know the specifics about particular evolutionary processes, this is an excellent read. The fact that it is understandable to beginners and fascinating to scientists makes this book truly unique and valuable.” I would also recommend Carl Zimmer's excellent blog The Loom (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom) as a companion to any course on evolution. I like some of the other suggestions in this thread as well, especially Sean Carroll's book. Coyne is very good too, and Dawkins new book is probably dependable in getting the students' attention (I haven't read it). The Selfish Gene is too old to be used as a general text for a course on evolution. Moreover, with Coyne and Dawkins, I'd worry about alienating some of the religious-minded students. I would hesitate to use those in a non-majors class here in the central valley of California, for example.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
My preferred definition is that science is about seeing the world as it is, religion about seeing the world as we would like it to be. A good example is the Copernican revolution. Copernicus and Galileo showed that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but the church insisted that it was and that man was god's favoured creation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quarta-feira, 12 de Maio de 2010 19:49 Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook Science is about questioning one's assumptions; religion is about what's right and what's wrong.
